Why are we not allowed to kill

**Crazed Rabbit** · 01-19-2009, 21:35

Originally Posted by 187Beefyz

Recently in Japan, we had a trial for this SK who killed numbers of small children's. In the trial she said something along the lines of "I feel sorry for those I killed. But I don't understand why we can't kill."

This got me thinking. I know killing is bad. But other then "Because the law said so" and "Because it said so on the Moses stone tablet" I couldn't think of valid reason why killing is bad.

Could anyone inspire me please?

It is the greatest infringement on the rights of another person. Of course, some people forfeit this fundamental right when they attack others - so a person breaking into a house has forfeited their right not to be killed by infringing on the rights of the homeowner. It should go without saying that not all infringements of rights committed by a person lead to the forfeiting of the right to life.

CR

**Beefy187** · 01-20-2009, 01:22

Thanks heaps for many ideas

I think everything said here makes sense, and I will not argue with any of them because they are all right in a way.

just to stir up more discussion. Say if theres a family who hates your family. Who could be coming to kill you any moment. Why are we not allowed to kill them in order to live in peace?

Ill keep observing the arguments, and hopefully I can come up with my own ideas soon.

**Meneldil** · 01-20-2009, 02:54

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It is the greatest infringement on the rights of another person. Of course, some people forfeit this fundamental right when they attack others - so a person breaking into a house has forfeited their right not to be killed by infringing on the rights of the homeowner. It should go without saying that not all infringements of rights committed by a person lead to the forfeiting of the right to life.

CR

I think the point was to avoid using concepts such as fundamental rights and what not. Furthermore, you don't really give any reasoning as to why it would be a fundamental right, which is I think exactly what 187Beefyz asked for.

And according to you, entering into someone house is a valuable reason for the owner to kill you? What a rough country the US must be :-/

Say if theres a family who hates your family. Who could be coming to kill you any moment. Why are we not allowed to kill them in order to live in peace?

Using my previous arguments:
In an anarchical state, because that family might very well have friends, or relatives, and they might very well be pissed off by you're action, thus seeking revenge, and creating an institution of fear and disorder until one of the two parties completely disappear.
In an organized society, because you'll be seen as a potential threat by everyone, forcing them to act accordingly by punishing you or killing you.

Overall, the kind of situation you describe cannot be solved. If you fear that you have to kill someone before he kills you, what prevents other people from thinking they should kill you before you kill them? After all, you will be the one who already comitted a murder on a simple assumption. Who is to say that you're not going to try to kill someone else after? Thus, you achieve no peace by killing the other family, but only create a sentiment of constant fear.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 01-20-2009, 05:46

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I think the point was to avoid using concepts such as fundamental rights and what not. Furthermore, you don't really give any reasoning as to why it would be a fundamental right, which is I think exactly what 187Beefyz asked for.

And according to you, entering into someone house is a valuable reason for the owner to kill you? What a rough country the US must be :-/

Our culture views Life, Liberty and Property as being fundamental for the individual. This draws, obviously, on the ideas Locke advances regarding these concepts.

If one views property as a fundamental right, than the defense of that right is a compelling interest on the part of the individual.

The person considering breaking and entering can protect their fundamental right to life quite readily by NOT infringing on the fundamental right of another.

**Meneldil** · 01-20-2009, 17:10

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Our culture views Life, Liberty and Property as being fundamental for the individual. This draws, obviously, on the ideas Locke advances regarding these concepts.

Then we're back to culture.

That has always been the worst and most irrelevant response. Who cares what other people want, realistically?

I think you're quite wrong on this. Everybody actes according to others' view. Not only we care about what they want, but also about what they think, do or say, and we define our behavior given these informations. Some people chose to behave as people expect them to do, some others willingfully chose not to.

Without a metaphysical superlative - murder, theft, etc are not wrong, they may just be inoportune in the name of balance and hypothetical personal security. The funny thing is that those who beleive in nothing still appeal to universal concepts to express their outrage when killing happens.

Everyone dies.

The real question is "why not" embrace nature and kill as callously as a falling tree or suffocating tide if you'd like to? You have better than a 50% chance of getting away with it - and if you beleive that humans are just animals, then the guilt should be gone in the same basket as God, Heaven, and hell.

By metaphysical superlative, do you mean some kind of god? If so, I call on BS. Many people wanted to explain why murder is bad without using universal principles. We so far reached several conclusions:
- there's actually no reason why murder is "bad"
- we decided it was bad out of a rational, egoistical reasoning
- we avoid killing eachother because of empathy
- we avoid killing eachother to protect our gene pool

Yet, even if I think each of these postulates is somewhat right, I still on a personal level use universal concepts to blame (most) murderers, and I don't believe in God/gods/Heaven/Hell. Universal Concepts are not limited to believers. We had this whole Enlightment thingy a few centuries ago you know.

**CBR** · 01-20-2009, 17:36

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Yet, even if I think each of these postulates is somewhat right, I still on a personal level use universal concepts to blame (most) murderers, and I don't believe in God/gods/Heaven/Hell. Universal Concepts are not limited to believers. We had this whole Enlightment thingy a few centuries ago you know.

By universal I assume that is meant as in 100% ?

Not all humans shows remorse/empathy and some seem to have no problems with killing. So killing=bad cannot be seen as universal for humans. I guess it can be considered universal if one looks at society(the majority) in general.

AFAIK there are examples of animals showing compassion even towards other species so one cannot even say it is a human concept only.

CBR

**ICantSpellDawg** · 01-20-2009, 17:52

Originally Posted by CBR

By universal I assume that is meant as in 100% ?

Not all humans shows remorse/empathy and some seem to have no problems with killing. So killing=bad cannot be seen as universal for humans. I guess it can be considered universal if one looks at society(the majority) in general.

AFAIK there are examples of animals showing compassion even towards other species so one cannot even say it is a human concept only.

CBR

Yes!

**Crazed Rabbit** · 01-20-2009, 05:58

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I think the point was to avoid using concepts such as fundamental rights and what not. Furthermore, you don't really give any reasoning as to why it would be a fundamental right, which is I think exactly what 187Beefyz asked for.

Because our life is the basis for all that we are as humans. It is being alive that is the essence of our existence and to take that completely and totally destroys a person in this world. Life is a gift from God, and to take it destroys that gift.

And according to you, entering into someone house is a valuable reason for the owner to kill you? What a rough country the US must be :-/

Breaking into a house - a significant difference. And I'm not about to bet my safety or the safety of those I care about on the benevolence of a person who has already committed a crime against me.

Say if theres a family who hates your family. Who could be coming to kill you any moment. Why are we not allowed to kill them in order to live in peace?

Very vague, but here's a bit of an answer - call the police or whoever if you have evidence they are going to kill you. Otherwise, simply be prepared should they arrive at your house.

I think it is wrong to want to kill simply so one is not inconvenienced. It is preemptive action in this case - essentially judging them guilty before they even commit a crime.

CR